Statement of Publication and Ethics & Malpractice Policy

• Editors' responsibilities 

Publication decisions 

The editor is responsible for deciding which journal submissions will be published.  The editor evaluates manuscripts solely on their merit regardless of authors' race, gender, disability, sexual orientation, religious belief, ethnic origin, citizenship, or political philosophy. The sole considerations are the work’s alignment with the journal’s scope. The editor considers the relevance and originality of the manuscript, its interest to scholars of Disability Studies, and its contribution to knowledge in the field. Also considered are the accessibility of language, and the presence of a sound, balanced argument, situated within the literature and discourse of the field. Current legal requirements regarding libel, copyright infringement, and plagiarism should also be considered. 

Confidentiality 

The editor and editorial team must not disclose any information about a submitted manuscript to anyone other than those immediately involved in the publication process. These may include corresponding author, reviewers, potential reviewers, other editorial advisors, as necessary and/or as appropriate. 

Disclosure and conflicts of interest 

Unpublished work disclosed in submissions will not be used by the editor or editorial team for their own research purposes without the author's explicit written consent. 

• Reviewers' responsibilities 

Contribution to editorial decisions 

The peer-reviewing process is done for the express purpose of assisting editor and editorial team in making editorial decisions. It is also generally intended to help serve to assist the author in improving the submission. 

Promptness 

Any invited reviewer who feels unqualified to review the research reported in a manuscript or knows that its prompt review will be impossible for them should notify the editor as soon as possible to do so and withdraw from the review process. 

Confidentiality  

All submissions received for review must be treated as confidential documents. They must not be disclosed to or discussed with others outside of the review process except as authorized by the editor. 

Standards of objectivity 

Reviews are to be conducted objectively and based on the RDS Guidelines for Manuscript Review. Inappropriate personal criticism of authors will not be tolerated. Reviewers shall commit to expressing their evaluations of work in clear, supported, and accessible ways. 

Acknowledgement of sources 

Reviewers should be vigilant about identifying unattributed work within a submission or work that has not been properly attributed, to the best of reviewer’s ability. 

As such, reviewers should identify if relevant published work referred to in submission is not cited in references. Reviewers will notify editor of apparent unattributed similarities between submissions and other published work to the best of their knowledge.

Disclosure and conflict of interest 

If reviewer feels they have a potential conflict of interest with any of  the authors, companies, or institutions associated with submission, they should bring it to the attention of the editor, and if appropriate recuse themself from review of that particular submission. Privileged information or ideas obtained through peer review process are not to be used for personal advantage and must be kept confidential.  

• Authors' duties 

Reporting standards

Authors of original research are to present an accurate, objective expression of their work and its significance to the field. Any data presented should be accurate.  Sufficient detail and appropriate references should be provided such that others can check sources of information and, if appropriate, replicate the findings.

Data access and retention

If practical, authors should be prepared to make their original data available to editorial team if requested.  Authors are suggested to maintain original data for at least ten years in a secure, appropriately accessible manner, ensuring appropriate confidentiality safeguards are taken.

Originality, plagiarism and acknowledgement of sources 

Authors submitting to the Review of Disability Studies will submit original work.  Any incorporated work of others not credited as author(s), will be appropriated cited and/or quoted as appropriate.  Works of significant influence will also be cited as appropriate.

Multiple, redundant or concurrent publication 

Each submission should be making a unique contribution. This generally means that a submission that is in essence an account of the same research should not be published in more than one journal.  Submitting the same work to multiple journals constitutes unacceptable and unethical practice.

Manuscripts that have been copyrighted elsewhere cannot be submitted to the journal. Manuscripts currently under review should not be resubmitted to other journals or copyrighted publications. The author(s) do however retain the rights to published  material under Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License. With appropriate attribution, this license  generally allows sharing and adapting for any purpose.

Authorship 

Authorship should only be extended to those with significant involvement in the creation of the submission. All authors with such significant contribution should be identified as co-author upon submission. The author corresponding in the review process will ensure that all contributing co-authors are identified and approve of initial submission and final version of manuscript.

Disclosure and conflicts of interest 

Authors should include a statement identifying any conflict of interest.  Author(s) should also disclose any financial support for the manuscript. 

Complaints and appeals

The editors take reasonable steps to prevent publishing papers that involve research that includes plagiarism, citation manipulation, data falsification, undisclosed conflicts of interest, or other misconduct. Evidence of misconduct will result in the rejection or withdrawal of the manuscript. Any concerns about published or pending articles can be brought to the attention of editors at [email protected] and will be investigated. If it is determined that there is reason for a retraction or correction, a statement of explanation will be placed on the journal website.

__________________
Our publication ethics and publication malpractice statement is modeled on the Publication Ethics and Publication Malpractice Statement of PsychOpen.eu and in reference to the Code of Conduct  and Best-Practice Guidelines for Journal Editors (Committee on Publication Ethics, 2024).